出版与作家生涯2009gladwell.typepad.com
马尔科姆·格拉德威尔回应史蒂芬·平克对其新书的评论
Malcolm Gladwell's response to Steven Pinker's review of his new book
导读
这是马尔科姆·格拉德威尔回应史蒂文·平克对其新书书评的一篇短文；评论区把讨论延伸到格拉德威尔的论证方法、数据可信度和争论方式。对写作者来说，它适合用来观察：面对批评时如何回应、如何识别论证中的样本偏差，以及为什么不能用小错误转移对核心数据的质疑。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
回应批评时，优先讨论对方的数据与方法，而不是给对手贴标签或翻旧账。
- 02
做论证时要检查样本选择：被排除的案例可能恰好会推翻你的结论。
- 03
引用他人研究时，来源可信度可以作为背景，但不能用拼写错误之类的小问题替代对数据质量的讨论。
- 04
争议写作中，先读双方原文和完整论证，再判断谁更有道理。
HN 评论精选
评价论证要看数据与方法；拼写错误不如数据问题严重，人身攻击会削弱回应。
我很惊讶所有回应似乎都站在平克一边，但这是我的看法：塞勒对无关问题的看法与他对NFL的分析有什么关系？——来源（以及他过去关于种族优越性的“研究”结论）的可信度是评估结论的一个因素。格拉德威尔似乎依赖人身攻击。——这很主观，但在我看来，称平克为“IQ原教旨主义者”相比平克更严厉的攻击已经算温和。当我看到平克的文字揭示格拉德威尔在书中把“igon value”写错时，我完全震惊。——在我看来，可疑的拼写总比可疑的数据好。
credo查看英文原文
I'm surprised that all responses seem to be on Pinker's side, but here is my take on it >>What do Sailor's beliefs about an unrelated issue have to do with his analysis of NFL Well, the credibility of a source (and his past "research" conclusion about racial superiority) is a factor in reviewing conclusions. >>Gladwell seems to rely on ad-homenim. This is subjective, but imo calling Pinker an "IQ fundamentalist" is a pretty mild response to the much more harsh attacks from Pinker. >>I was absolutely shocked when Pinker's writing revealed that Gladwell in his book referred to an "igon value" imo questionable spelling is better than questionable data.
指出“每档”统计存在选择偏差：排除低顺位平庸球员，使结论被方法预先决定。
史蒂夫·塞勒在博客上回应了这件事，并另文解释自己的观点。总体我认为塞勒的批评相当成立：贝里用“每档进攻”指标，实际上是把高顺位选中的四分卫（大多在NFL获得大量上场档数）与低顺位但表现意外更好、因而获得大量档数的四分卫相比；他基本上把所有低顺位、表现如预期平庸因而上场不多的四分卫排除在分析之外。换句话说，他的方法预先就被设计成得出马尔科姆喜欢的结论。
bokonist查看英文原文
Steve Sailer has a reponse up on his blog: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/11/gladwell-strikes-back.html He has another explanation of his point here: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/11/pinker-v-gladwell-on-nfl-quarterbacks.html Overall, I think Sailer's critique is quite valid: What Berri is doing, in effect, by using his "per-play" measure is comparing quarterbacks taken at the top of the draft (most of whom get a lot of plays in the NFL) to those taken lower in the draft who turned out to be surprisingly better than expected, and thus got a lot of plays. He's essentially leaving out of his analysis all those lower drafted quarterbacks who turned out to be as mediocre as expected and thus didn't get many plays. In other words, his methodology is pre-rigged to produce the conclusion that Malcolm likes.
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选